[PVTree]

Except for Somfai in the first half, the game was a total dud for Stanford. Don't recall us missing so many layups in a game.

[PVTree]

Except for Somfai in the first half, the game was a total dud for Stanford. Don't recall us missing so many layups in a game.

[pefloresjr]

16 turnovers and a bunch of missed layups is really frustrating especially in a game that was winnable.  I think the missed layups are mostly lack of experience finishing through strong contact, but sometimes, it's just a bad game and even players who are good at finishing through contact like Nunu are just missing.  The easy shots should start to fall more regularly as Eschmeyer, Swain, and Somfai gain more experience.  

I think the main causes of the turnovers are the youth of the team and the lack of great point guards.  The young team has resulted in changing lineups as players mature at different rates and the coaches search for combinations that work against different teams.  As freshmen continue to get a lot of minutes as many here desperately want, there are going to be growing pains like more turnovers.  Another team that has equally bad issues with turnovers is the Warriors.  It's because of the changing lineups, not because Steve Kerr is a lousy coach.  Coaching can help decrease many careless turnovers in the short term.  But, rapidly improving ball handling skills and the quickness of your point guards and other players is not an easy fix for any coaches.  If we can decrease the careless turnovers and make progress on the team jelling and playing better together, I think that will be evidence of the coaches doing a good job.  If they don't, the coaches will deserve criticism.  (I am aware that the coaches do the recruiting, but that is a separate issue that has existed for many years at Stanford.)

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

16 turnovers and a bunch of missed layups is really frustrating especially in a game that was winnable.  I think the missed layups are mostly lack of experience finishing through strong contact, but sometimes, it's just a bad game and even players who are good at finishing through contact like Nunu are just missing.  The easy shots should start to fall more regularly as Eschmeyer, Swain, and Somfai gain more experience.  

I think the main causes of the turnovers are the youth of the team and the lack of great point guards.  The young team has resulted in changing lineups as players mature at different rates and the coaches search for combinations that work against different teams.  As freshmen continue to get a lot of minutes as many here desperately want, there are going to be growing pains like more turnovers.  Another team that has equally bad issues with turnovers is the Warriors.  It's because of the changing lineups, not because Steve Kerr is a lousy coach.  Coaching can help decrease many careless turnovers in the short term.  But, rapidly improving ball handling skills and the quickness of your point guards and other players is not an easy fix for any coaches.  If we can decrease the careless turnovers and make progress on the team jelling and playing better together, I think that will be evidence of the coaches doing a good job.  If they don't, the coaches will deserve criticism.  (I am aware that the coaches do the recruiting, but that is a separate issue that has existed for many years at Stanford.)

Cheers,
Pete F.

[stopandpop]

16 turnovers and a bunch of missed layups is really frustrating especially in a game that was winnable.  I think the missed layups are mostly lack of experience finishing through strong contact, but sometimes, it's just a bad game and even players who are good at finishing through contact like Nunu are just missing.  The easy shots should start to fall more regularly as Eschmeyer, Swain, and Somfai gain more experience.  

I think the main causes of the turnovers are the youth of the team and the lack of great point guards.  The young team has resulted in changing lineups as players mature at different rates and the coaches search for combinations that work against different teams.  As freshmen continue to get a lot of minutes as many here desperately want, there are going to be growing pains like more turnovers.  Another team that has equally bad issues with turnovers is the Warriors.  It's because of the changing lineups, not because Steve Kerr is a lousy coach.  Coaching can help decrease many careless turnovers in the short term.  But, rapidly improving ball handling skills and the quickness of your point guards and other players is not an easy fix for any coaches.  If we can decrease the careless turnovers and make progress on the team jelling and playing better together, I think that will be evidence of the coaches doing a good job.  If they don't, the coaches will deserve criticism.  (I am aware that the coaches do the recruiting, but that is a separate issue that has existed for many years at Stanford.)

Cheers,
Pete F.

It's very simple.  The offense not only restricts Stanford's very good talent, but (by design), it lends itself to more turnovers.  Because the pattern is East-West and not North-South, players don't regularly have decent driving lanes to the basket, and when they do, they're just not used to going in and finishing.

[stopandpop]

16 turnovers and a bunch of missed layups is really frustrating especially in a game that was winnable.  I think the missed layups are mostly lack of experience finishing through strong contact, but sometimes, it's just a bad game and even players who are good at finishing through contact like Nunu are just missing.  The easy shots should start to fall more regularly as Eschmeyer, Swain, and Somfai gain more experience.  

I think the main causes of the turnovers are the youth of the team and the lack of great point guards.  The young team has resulted in changing lineups as players mature at different rates and the coaches search for combinations that work against different teams.  As freshmen continue to get a lot of minutes as many here desperately want, there are going to be growing pains like more turnovers.  Another team that has equally bad issues with turnovers is the Warriors.  It's because of the changing lineups, not because Steve Kerr is a lousy coach.  Coaching can help decrease many careless turnovers in the short term.  But, rapidly improving ball handling skills and the quickness of your point guards and other players is not an easy fix for any coaches.  If we can decrease the careless turnovers and make progress on the team jelling and playing better together, I think that will be evidence of the coaches doing a good job.  If they don't, the coaches will deserve criticism.  (I am aware that the coaches do the recruiting, but that is a separate issue that has existed for many years at Stanford.)

Cheers,
Pete F.

It's very simple.  The offense not only restricts Stanford's very good talent, but (by design), it lends itself to more turnovers.  Because the pattern is East-West and not North-South, players don't regularly have decent driving lanes to the basket, and when they do, they're just not used to going in and finishing.

[BostonCard]

Except the problem yesterday was not that we weren’t getting to the hoop, it was that we weren’t putting the ball in the basket once we were there.  There were plenty of opportunities, we just didn’t make them.

BC

[BostonCard]

Except the problem yesterday was not that we weren’t getting to the hoop, it was that we weren’t putting the ball in the basket once we were there.  There were plenty of opportunities, we just didn’t make them.

BC

[Nobadeer]

I checked the play by play online. By my unofficial word search, LSJU missed *17* layups (of which 14 were in the second half). If LSJU had made 1/3 of those layups, they win.

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask.../401819619

[Nobadeer]

I checked the play by play online. By my unofficial word search, LSJU missed *17* layups (of which 14 were in the second half). If LSJU had made 1/3 of those layups, they win.

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask.../401819619

[M T]

I checked the play by play online. By my unofficial word search, LSJU missed *17* layups (of which 14 were in the second half). If LSJU had made 1/3 of those layups, they win.

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask.../401819619

Rather than walking through the play-by-play, the various stat services offer this and many more stats.
GoStanford.com's info about a game always has a link to Live Stats, which is from StatBroadcast.com.
Unfortunately, GoStanford drops that link once the game is over.
However, you can see all Stanford games there (not just "live") at
  https://www.statbroadcast.com/events/sta...p?gid=stan
You will find "Book" and "Stats".  Stats is what you get during the game.  Book is the (claimed?) Official (final) Book for the game.

This game's Stats (click on Visitor Stats) indicate Stanford hit 9 of 24 layups (ie, missed 15).  It is also interesting to click on Analytics (which I take with a shaker of salt) (which isn't in "Book").  The Book has the full substitution log, which I think is not fully available in Stats.

The stats are the responsibility of the home team.  StatsBroadcast claims no responsibility for the accuracy (AIUI).  I often find that the Play by Play has players scoring even though the PxP doesn't show they've been substituted in.  I hope the full substitution log resolves that, but I haven't ever checked.

P.S. It is a bit simplistic to say that if they'd hit 1/3 of the layups that would be NN points. Some of those missed layups were after the 21 offensive rebounds which wouldn't have been available had they hit the original shot (which may or may not have been a layup). Besides, these were not uncontested layups.

I truly wonder if Stanford has every had more offensive rebounds than defensive rebounds before this game.

[M T]

I checked the play by play online. By my unofficial word search, LSJU missed *17* layups (of which 14 were in the second half). If LSJU had made 1/3 of those layups, they win.

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask.../401819619

Rather than walking through the play-by-play, the various stat services offer this and many more stats.
GoStanford.com's info about a game always has a link to Live Stats, which is from StatBroadcast.com.
Unfortunately, GoStanford drops that link once the game is over.
However, you can see all Stanford games there (not just "live") at
  https://www.statbroadcast.com/events/sta...p?gid=stan
You will find "Book" and "Stats".  Stats is what you get during the game.  Book is the (claimed?) Official (final) Book for the game.

This game's Stats (click on Visitor Stats) indicate Stanford hit 9 of 24 layups (ie, missed 15).  It is also interesting to click on Analytics (which I take with a shaker of salt) (which isn't in "Book").  The Book has the full substitution log, which I think is not fully available in Stats.

The stats are the responsibility of the home team.  StatsBroadcast claims no responsibility for the accuracy (AIUI).  I often find that the Play by Play has players scoring even though the PxP doesn't show they've been substituted in.  I hope the full substitution log resolves that, but I haven't ever checked.

P.S. It is a bit simplistic to say that if they'd hit 1/3 of the layups that would be NN points. Some of those missed layups were after the 21 offensive rebounds which wouldn't have been available had they hit the original shot (which may or may not have been a layup). Besides, these were not uncontested layups.

I truly wonder if Stanford has every had more offensive rebounds than defensive rebounds before this game.

[jonnyss]

I checked the play by play online. By my unofficial word search, LSJU missed *17* layups (of which 14 were in the second half). If LSJU had made 1/3 of those layups, they win.

P.S. It is a bit simplistic to say that if they'd hit 1/3 of the layups that would be NN points.  Some of those missed layups were after the  21 offensive rebounds which wouldn't have been available had they hit the original shot (which may or may not have been a layup).  Besides, these were not uncontested layups.

I truly wonder if Stanford has every had more offensive rebounds than defensive rebounds before this game.

iirc there were at least 2 plays, maybe 3,  in which we missed the lay-up, got the offensive rebound and missed the point-blank put-back, got that offensive rebound and missed the point-blank lay-up again.

that will pad the stats on offensive rebounding.

[jonnyss]

I checked the play by play online. By my unofficial word search, LSJU missed *17* layups (of which 14 were in the second half). If LSJU had made 1/3 of those layups, they win.

P.S. It is a bit simplistic to say that if they'd hit 1/3 of the layups that would be NN points.  Some of those missed layups were after the  21 offensive rebounds which wouldn't have been available had they hit the original shot (which may or may not have been a layup).  Besides, these were not uncontested layups.

I truly wonder if Stanford has every had more offensive rebounds than defensive rebounds before this game.

iirc there were at least 2 plays, maybe 3,  in which we missed the lay-up, got the offensive rebound and missed the point-blank put-back, got that offensive rebound and missed the point-blank lay-up again.

that will pad the stats on offensive rebounding.

[Jskass]

I checked the play by play online. By my unofficial word search, LSJU missed *17* layups (of which 14 were in the second half). If LSJU had made 1/3 of those layups, they win.

P.S. It is a bit simplistic to say that if they'd hit 1/3 of the layups that would be NN points.  Some of those missed layups were after the  21 offensive rebounds which wouldn't have been available had they hit the original shot (which may or may not have been a layup).  Besides, these were not uncontested layups.

I truly wonder if Stanford has every had more offensive rebounds than defensive rebounds before this game.

iirc there were at least 2 plays, maybe 3,  in which we missed the lay-up, got the offensive rebound and missed the point-blank put-back, got that offensive rebound and missed the point-blank lay-up again.

that will pad the stats on offensive rebounding.

having been there in person (and as a former basketball statistician) -- the above definitely happened and was just awful to watch - as opposed to the stats which lied in this case!

[Jskass]

I checked the play by play online. By my unofficial word search, LSJU missed *17* layups (of which 14 were in the second half). If LSJU had made 1/3 of those layups, they win.

P.S. It is a bit simplistic to say that if they'd hit 1/3 of the layups that would be NN points.  Some of those missed layups were after the  21 offensive rebounds which wouldn't have been available had they hit the original shot (which may or may not have been a layup).  Besides, these were not uncontested layups.

I truly wonder if Stanford has every had more offensive rebounds than defensive rebounds before this game.

iirc there were at least 2 plays, maybe 3,  in which we missed the lay-up, got the offensive rebound and missed the point-blank put-back, got that offensive rebound and missed the point-blank lay-up again.

that will pad the stats on offensive rebounding.

having been there in person (and as a former basketball statistician) -- the above definitely happened and was just awful to watch - as opposed to the stats which lied in this case!

[OCcardinal]

I truly wonder if Stanford has every had more offensive rebounds than defensive rebounds before this game.

Found at least one example.  In the November 15, 2009 game against Rutgers, Stanford had 24 offensive rebounds and 19 defensive rebounds.

Stanford Rutgers WBB Box Score

Stanford also had more offensive rebounds (24) than Rutgers' defensive rebounds (20).  Some great rebounders on that squad.  Six players had at least 3 offensive rebounds:

Player ORB/DRB/TRB
Jayne Appel* 6/6/12
Nneka Ogwumike* 4/3/7
Kayla Pedersen* 3/5/8
Jeanette Pohlen* 3/3/6
Rosalyn Gold-Onwude* 3/1/4
Joslyn Tinkle 3/0/3
Lindy La Rocque 1/1/2
Melanie Murphy 1/0/1
Total 24/19/43
*starter

[OCcardinal]

I truly wonder if Stanford has every had more offensive rebounds than defensive rebounds before this game.

Found at least one example.  In the November 15, 2009 game against Rutgers, Stanford had 24 offensive rebounds and 19 defensive rebounds.

Stanford Rutgers WBB Box Score

Stanford also had more offensive rebounds (24) than Rutgers' defensive rebounds (20).  Some great rebounders on that squad.  Six players had at least 3 offensive rebounds:

Player ORB/DRB/TRB
Jayne Appel* 6/6/12
Nneka Ogwumike* 4/3/7
Kayla Pedersen* 3/5/8
Jeanette Pohlen* 3/3/6
Rosalyn Gold-Onwude* 3/1/4
Joslyn Tinkle 3/0/3
Lindy La Rocque 1/1/2
Melanie Murphy 1/0/1
Total 24/19/43
*starter

[M T]

I truly wonder if Stanford has every had more offensive rebounds than defensive rebounds before this game.

Found at least one example.  In the November 15, 2009 game against Rutgers, Stanford had 24 offensive rebounds and 19 defensive rebounds.

Stanford Rutgers WBB Box Score

Stanford also had more offensive rebounds (24) than Rutgers' defensive rebounds (20).  Some great rebounders on that squad.  Six players had at least 3 offensive rebounds:

Player ORB/DRB/TRB
Jayne Appel* 6/6/12
Nneka Ogwumike* 4/3/7
Kayla Pedersen* 3/5/8
Jeanette Pohlen* 3/3/6
Rosalyn Gold-Onwude* 3/1/4
Joslyn Tinkle 3/0/3
Lindy La Rocque 1/1/2
Melanie Murphy 1/0/1
Total 24/19/43
*starter

Interesting. Thanks!  How did you find it?
And, wow, it is amazing to recall how much talent was on that team.

Yes, Stanford had good rebounders (which applies at both ends).  In both games, the opponent shot at a significantly higher percentage than Stanford.

Stanford handily beat Rutgers 81-66.
FG%:  Stanford 38.0%  Rutgers 47.4%
OR%:  Stanford 54.5%  Rutgers 26.9%

In the Syracuse game, Stanford's shooting was worse and the rebounding was not as outstanding (but very good).
FG%:  Stanford 34.8%  Syracuse 46.0%
OR%:  Stanford 47.7%  Syracuse 32.1%

[M T]

I truly wonder if Stanford has every had more offensive rebounds than defensive rebounds before this game.

Found at least one example.  In the November 15, 2009 game against Rutgers, Stanford had 24 offensive rebounds and 19 defensive rebounds.

Stanford Rutgers WBB Box Score

Stanford also had more offensive rebounds (24) than Rutgers' defensive rebounds (20).  Some great rebounders on that squad.  Six players had at least 3 offensive rebounds:

Player ORB/DRB/TRB
Jayne Appel* 6/6/12
Nneka Ogwumike* 4/3/7
Kayla Pedersen* 3/5/8
Jeanette Pohlen* 3/3/6
Rosalyn Gold-Onwude* 3/1/4
Joslyn Tinkle 3/0/3
Lindy La Rocque 1/1/2
Melanie Murphy 1/0/1
Total 24/19/43
*starter

Interesting. Thanks!  How did you find it?
And, wow, it is amazing to recall how much talent was on that team.

Yes, Stanford had good rebounders (which applies at both ends).  In both games, the opponent shot at a significantly higher percentage than Stanford.

Stanford handily beat Rutgers 81-66.
FG%:  Stanford 38.0%  Rutgers 47.4%
OR%:  Stanford 54.5%  Rutgers 26.9%

In the Syracuse game, Stanford's shooting was worse and the rebounding was not as outstanding (but very good).
FG%:  Stanford 34.8%  Syracuse 46.0%
OR%:  Stanford 47.7%  Syracuse 32.1%

[OCcardinal]

Interesting. Thanks!  How did you find it?

I searched HerHoopStats for games in their database where Stanford had at least 18 OR and fewer than 18 DR. Nothing came up so then tried 19, then 20. Third try's a charm!

[OCcardinal]

Interesting. Thanks!  How did you find it?

I searched HerHoopStats for games in their database where Stanford had at least 18 OR and fewer than 18 DR. Nothing came up so then tried 19, then 20. Third try's a charm!